Church shooting

[Kat Walker]

Reading more into this, I do see the gunman as a failure of the apparently shallow Christians around him. His hateful brand of atheism doesn't excuse their lack of compassion or intervention for him, nor his violent end. We need to reach out in love to these people and show them they are precious to God, otherwise Satan will find use for those we cast away.

But, I also don't think he was deranged to the point where he can't be held responsible for his actions. It was a combination of his hate, arrogance, and anti-social nihilism (helped along with youth and testosterone) that drove him to kill. Much like the kind of kids that start school shootings. He was intelligent enough to spell out his motives and kill in cold blood.

[Shadowalker]

He was obviously mentally incapacited, therefore he knew not what he was doing.

Spiritually, he knew not what he was doing, but in material terms he did. He wanted to kill and maim people who held beliefs that he despised.

In this case, that's anti-Christian bigotry and complete intolerance.

I truly feel that it's likely going to get worse in coming years, too, partly because we as Christians put up with a lot of anti-Christian slander with out any counter-argument or protestation. This can easily morph into an extreme loathing of Christians and Christianity that in and of itself warps people and can make them willing to kill.

[Nate]

partly because we as Christians put up with a lot of anti-Christian slander with out any counter-argument or protestation.

What? Coming from liberal atheists, it's the exact opposite, they claim to have to put up with anti-atheist slander without any counter-argument or protestation. See gay marriage, abortion, federal money going to faith-based initiatives, etc.

This can easily morph into an extreme loathing of Christians and Christianity that in and of itself warps people and can make them willing to kill.

Sorry, but no. A great example of this is Richard Dawkins, who is a fundamental atheist, if it were possible to be one. He loathes Christians, calling religion a "virus," and anyone who believes in religion mentally ill. He obviously has an extreme loathing of Christians and Christianity, but has yet to kill or injure anyone.

You can't blame something like this on their beliefs (or lack thereof). It can only be blamed on the fact that he was obviously mentally unstable. By the way, there have been plenty of mentally unstable Christians who have killed others in "the name of God" (in quotes because obviously God had nothing to do with it), but would you feel offended if an atheist said that Christian beliefs can morph into an extreme loathing of atheism and make them willing to kill, and that thus Christian beliefs were dangerous?

You're darn right you would. I wish Christians would learn to see things from the other side, even if we don't agree with it.

[Shadowalker]

What? Coming from liberal atheists, it's the exact opposite, they claim to have to put up with anti-atheist slander without any counter-argument or protestation.

Such as? I don't see any anti-atheist slander. "Touched by an Angel" is about the only mainstream TV show in recent memory that I can think of that casted atheism in a negative light.

Compared to that, how many Hollywood movies and TV shows cast Christianity in a negative light?

See gay marriage, abortion, federal money going to faith-based initiatives, etc.

What do any of these have to do with atheism? I know non-religious people who are against gay "marriage". I know plenty of non-religious people who are against abortion.

How do faith-based initiatives negatively impact atheists?

Sorry, but no.

Then why are all of the recent church/school shooters anti-Christians?

A great example of this is Richard Dawkins, who is a fundamental atheist, if it were possible to be one. He loathes Christians, calling religion a "virus," and anyone who believes in religion mentally ill. He obviously has an extreme loathing of Christians and Christianity, but has yet to kill or injure anyone.

But his attitude is the same as those church/school shooters who do kill and injure people.

Also, one lone counter-example hardly proves me wrong, Nate.

You can't blame something like this on their beliefs (or lack thereof).

I disagree. Their beliefs are so extreme that it causes them to hate certain groups of people, which in turn makes them more likely to go out and commit crimes against the people that they hate.

When this sort of hatred is directed towards Jews, we call it anti-semitism, and society actively discourages it.

When this sort of hatred is directed towards Muslims, we call it religious intolerance or cultural insensitivity, and society actively discourages it.

So why isn't the same true when this hatred is directed at Christians, or religion in general?

Richard Dawkins is a hater, and he should be critisized for his vile hatred. He should be given the same treatment as an anti-semite like David Duke is given.

It can only be blamed on the fact that he was obviously mentally unstable.

Is it your belief that mental instability is the only thing that can drive a person to kill another?

If so, how do you explain WWII? Was every signle person who shot and killed someone in WWII mentally unstable?

Mental instability alone does not make one a killer. There has to be more to it than that, in my opinion. Hatred that goes with out correction helps a lot in providing the "more to it than that".

By the way, there have been plenty of mentally unstable Christians who have killed others in "the name of God" (in quotes because obviously God had nothing to do with it), but would you feel offended if an atheist said that Christian beliefs can morph into an extreme loathing of atheism and make them willing to kill, and that thus Christian beliefs were dangerous?

No, I'd calmly ask the atheist to list me a recent example of Christians killing atheists "in the name of God". Compared to the total population of Christians, he or she won't be able to come up with much.

On the other hand, we have plenty of recent examples of atheists going out of their way to kill Christians.

I wish Christians would learn to see things from the other side, even if we don't agree with it.

I wish atheists would learn to see things from the other side, because the vast, vast majority of atheists that I meet on-line clearly don't, and many of them are bigoted towards Christians.

I have met a lot of really nasty and vicious atheists on-line - people with chips on their shoulders the size of Texas. For some reason, they never seem to be called to account for their viciousness, or even asked to tone it down.

Part of the problem is that most of the Christians on those sites where I've seen atheists act like this would never pick up for themselves. That's part of the reason why I'm here.

[Fish and Chips]

The leading cause of Atheism today are Christians.

A sad story.

I have met a lot of really nasty and vicious atheists on-line - people with chips on their shoulders the size of Texas. For some reason, they never seem to be called to account for their viciousness, or even asked to tone it down.

I've had to deal with people like that for three years. The anonymity of an online environment is easily taken advantage of by people who would have no inclination towards polite conversation in person if society did not demand it of them up front. The stories I could tell. Fueling the fire is that the majority of Christians online are easy prey, either stubbornly ineffective or spiritually immature, and are not prepared for something as inherently lawless as the Internet.

The trick is that they are mostly talk. Their words are vicious and cutting because it is all they have, their behavior widely panned in the real world.

[Nate]

This thread is getting ugly fast, so I'll just say my piece and get out.

Such as? I don't see any anti-atheist slander.

If you looked at it from the point of view of the other side rather than your own, you would. "One nation, under God." By the way, this was NOT in the original pledge of allegiance, but was added during America's whole paranoia about Communism, to make Communism seem anti-God. "In God we trust" is written on the money, atheists don't trust in God.

Are they ridiculous examples? Well, yes. But that's their point of view, and let's not forget, the founding fathers, religious beliefs aside, set up a fantastically secular government, and Christians attempting to make laws based on religious beliefs is fairly anti-atheist if you ask me.

Compared to that, how many Hollywood movies and TV shows cast Christianity in a negative light?

I'd wager far less than portray radical Islam in a negative light, especially after 9/11.

What do any of these have to do with atheism? I know non-religious people who are against gay "marriage". I know plenty of non-religious people who are against abortion.

Name one reason, not based on Christianity, why gay marriage should be outlawed. There isn't one. Thus any attempt to outlaw gay marriage is based SOLELY on Christian beliefs.

Abortion obviously is murder of children, and thus, even many non-Christians will be opposed to it for that reason, but even so it's mostly Christians that are trying to get it outlawed.

How do faith-based initiatives negatively impact atheists?

How does federal funding of Planned Parenthood negatively impact Christians? In both cases, it's because the money the person pays is going to something they do not support.

Then why are all of the recent church/school shooters anti-Christians?

FACTS PLEASE. The Columbine shooters were CLAIMED to have killed people when they stated a belief in God, but the people who claim this were unable to verify their claims. Also, Seung-Hui Cho compared himself to Jesus Christ in his videos. In fact in many of his videos he went off on those people who indulged themselves in earthly pleasures.

Also, one lone counter-example hardly proves me wrong, Nate.

Okay, so what about the other millions of atheists who don't kill people? On the contrary, YOUR claims of two or three people shooting and killing others are the lone counter-examples.

Their beliefs are so extreme that it causes them to hate certain groups of people, which in turn makes them more likely to go out and commit crimes against the people that they hate.

See also the Crusades, and the Salem Witch Trials, and the Spanish Inquisition. All of them involving Christians doing what you claim atheists do right there. Funny how that works.

Richard Dawkins is a hater, and he should be critisized for his vile hatred. He should be given the same treatment as an anti-semite like David Duke is given.

No argument here.

Is it your belief that mental instability is the only thing that can drive a person to kill another?

If so, how do you explain WWII? Was every signle person who shot and killed someone in WWII mentally unstable?

No, but it's obvious this kid wasn't quite all there in the head, which of course is dangerous. Same is true of the Va. Tech shooter. And war is a bit different than real life, so your second question is invalid.

Mental instability alone does not make one a killer. There has to be more to it than that, in my opinion.

Replace "mental instability" with "atheism" and you'll see the point I'm making.

No, I'd calmly ask the atheist to list me a recent example of Christians killing atheists "in the name of God".

I think I covered this earlier, and of course, let's not forget the Christians that bombed abortion clinics, shall we?

Compared to the total population of Christians, he or she won't be able to come up with much.

The same can be said of the number of atheists that kill Christians out of religious intolerance compared to the total population of atheists.

On the other hand, we have plenty of recent examples of atheists going out of their way to kill Christians.

One or two does not qualify as "plenty."

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Richard Dawkins is a hater, and he should be critisized for his vile hatred. He should be given the same treatment as an anti-semite like David Duke is given.

So wait, what's this about loving your enemy again?

I think it's pretty ridiculous to see that so many Christians have this paranoia that "Everyone is constantly out to get you and rip your faith apart". It's usually not the case.

[Alexander]

So wait, what's this about loving your enemy again?

I think it's pretty ridiculous to see that so many Christians have this paranoia that "Everyone is constantly out to get you and rip your faith apart". It's usually not the case.

The real basic answer is: "People are sinful at heart. Christians included. And we're without any hope except for God's only son who sacrificed himself for us."

It doesn't matter who you are. We're all guilty and accountable. The only hope we have is honestly through grace, love, and compassion from our Lord.

Because if you look at yourself and think for a moment, haven't we all been hypocrites?

[Shadowalker]

This thread is getting ugly fast, so I'll just say my piece and get out.

Well, this thread is extremely civil... compared to most of the threads where I've seen atheists talk about Christianity.

If you looked at it from the point of view of the other side rather than your own, you would.

I have looked at it from the other side, or at least tried to. I've asked myself, for example, "If I was a member of a small Christian minority who grew up in, and lived in, a predominantly Hindu country, would I strenuously object to 'under Vishnu' being in that nation's Pledge of Alliegance."?

No, I wouldn't. I honestly wouldn't. I'd respect the fact that the majority of my countrymen are Hindus, and hence naturally like having such references to Vishnu (or another Hindu god) in some elements of their daily public lives. I would refrain from saying 'under Vishnu' myself (if not the entire Pledge, depending on my view of the country as a whole), but I wouldn't try to change the Pledge.

Likewise (to go to an example closer to my own country of Canada), if the national anthem of this predominantly Hindu country included "Vishnu" (just as the Canadian national anthem makes refernece to "God keep our land"), I would not object to it. I simply would refrain from saying or singing the line that included Vishnu.

To me, these are small elements of the broader culture that reasonable people live with since it makes most people in that culture happy to have.

I'm a patriotic Canadian who likes the refernce to God in the Canadian national anthem. It is good when a nation collectively respects God enough to ask Him to keep it glorious and free.

"One nation, under God." By the way, this was NOT in the original pledge of allegiance, but was added during America's whole paranoia about Communism, to make Communism seem anti-God.

It has been around as long as most Americans have been alive, however, meaning that it's the Pledge of Alliegance that Americans are most familiar and comfortable with.

Anyway, I admittably don't have much, if any, sympathy for people who take exception to small elements of the broader culture that reflect upon the predominant faith of the country.

Are they ridiculous examples? Well, yes. But that's their point of view, and let's not forget, the founding fathers, religious beliefs aside, set up a fantastically secular government, and Christians attempting to make laws based on religious beliefs is fairly anti-atheist if you ask me.

I'd wager far less than portray radical Islam in a negative light, especially after 9/11.

If I was a betting man, I'd take you up on that wager.

I can list numerous Hollywood movies that present Christianity in a negative light, if you want.

I'll give you gay marriage for now until I can collect my thoughts more on it.

Abortion obviously is murder of children, and thus, even many non-Christians will be opposed to it for that reason, but even so it's mostly Christians that are trying to get it outlawed.

It's mostly Christians because most Americans and Canadians are Christians. In America, at least, it's probably mostly Christians who want to keep abortion legal.

Abortion is not a religious issue.

How does federal funding of Planned Parenthood negatively impact Christians?

It doesn't. It subsidizes a child-killing agency, which is bad enough on its own.

In both cases, it's because the money the person pays is going to something they do not support.

There's a big difference to objecting to the government subsidizing child-killing, and objecting to the government funding faith-based programs that are proven to be effectual (Alcoholics Anonymous are greatly effectual in large part due to the spiritual dimensions of its treatment approach).

FACTS PLEASE. The Columbine shooters were CLAIMED to have killed people when they stated a belief in God, but the people who claim this were unable to verify their claims.

How would you verify such a claim?

Also, Seung-Hui Cho compared himself to Jesus Christ in his videos. In fact in many of his videos he went off on those people who indulged themselves in earthly pleasures.

He also strongly lambasted the Christian religion, which is the far more sailent point.

Okay, so what about the other millions of atheists who don't kill people?

Not all of them are hateful of Christians. My point is that those that are need to be corrected on the matter, just as we correct those who are hateful of Jews, or who are hateful of Muslims.

See also the Crusades, and the Salem Witch Trials, and the Spanish Inquisition.

Ancient history. Christianity is very much changed from what it was in those times.

Also, if you raise these, then I can raise Stalin as atheism leading to the brutal deaths of millions (official atheism was an essential element of communism in the old USSR). Stalin alone was responsible for the deaths of more people than your three examples put together.

As for your other arguments, my focus is principly on anti-Christians, not atheists as a whole. I do know some atheists who are not hateful of Christianity.

[Tenshi no Ai]

most Americans and Canadians are Christians.

I'll HIGHLY disagree with that. They say our continent is a 'Christian' one, but it's not. I've heard this time and time again but no, I believe there are ALOT more non Christians in both countries, whether atheists, Hindu, Jew or whatever.

[Shadowalker]

So wait, what's this about loving your enemy again?

Parents love thier children. It doesn't stop them from disciplining them when it's appropriate to do so.

Love, and valid criticism, are not mutually exclusive.

I think it's pretty ridiculous to see that so many Christians have this paranoia that "Everyone is constantly out to get you and rip your faith apart". It's usually not the case.

I'm not saying that everyone is constantly out to get us and rip the Christian faith apart. I'm saying that those who are hateful of Christianity should be corrected on the matter just as we correct those who are hateful of Jews, or who are hateful of Muslims.

[Shadowalker]

I'll HIGHLY disagree with that. They say our continent is a 'Christian' one, but it's not. I've heard this time and time again but no, I believe there are ALOT more non Christians in both countries, whether atheists, Hindu, Jew or whatever.

I'm sorry, but that's simply not true.

As per this link: http://www.adherents.com/rel_USA.html , roughly 80% of Americans are Christians.

As per this link: http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census01/Products/Analytic/companion/rel/canada.cfm , approximately 70% of Canadians are Christians.

Yes, the data is about five years old in both cases, but given the limitations on major demographic changes, and the size of the majorities here, there's no question that Christians are still the majority in both countries.

The second link is from Statistics Canada, an official government website.

There is a fair number of "casual Christians", but even these folks genuinely do believe in God and Jesus Christ, they simply don't base their day-to-day living around those beliefs.

I've learned to never presume that a person isn't a Christian because of their personal behavior, and/or lack of speaking about God or Jesus Christ. Most Christians, in my experience, are very private about their faith, at least outside of church walls.

[Shadowalker]

The leading cause of Atheism today are Christians.

A sad story.

In a way, I agree with you. My own view is that I think we're push-overs too often, and that means that our message tends to get drowned out by louder atheists. I will admit that it's a difficult balance to strike between being loving to others, and making a firm stance for Christ. I probably err on the side of firmness, I will be honest there.

I've had to deal with people like that for three years. The anonymity of an online environment is easily taken advantage of by people who would have no inclination towards polite conversation in person if society did not demand it of them up front. The stories I could tell. Fueling the fire is that the majority of Christians online are easy prey, either stubbornly ineffective or spiritually immature, and are not prepared for something as inherently lawless as the Internet.

The trick is that they are mostly talk. Their words are vicious and cutting because it is all they have, their behavior widely panned in the real world.

I strongly agree. Good points. This is why I think Christians, including myself, need to start becoming more effective (more willing to stand up for ourselves), and spiritually mature.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

The majority of the Christians counted by censuses and statistics are not genuine, I'm afraid. A large percentage of those who label themselves as a Christian do not generally live as a Christian normally would.

[Bobtheduck]

The majority of the Christians counted by censuses and statistics are not genuine, I'm afraid. A large percentage of those who label themselves as a Christian do not generally live as a Christian normally would.

Agreed. And what I've seen in YWAM is many parents view DTS as a "quick fix" to fix their misbehaving college student child, much like parents of younger children send them to Christian schools to reform them. One guy on my DTS was not a Christian, not part of a Christian family, but sent there because he was gambling away his parents' fortunes, and his dad sent him there to curb his gambling... No joke... At least that story had a happy ending, because he became a Christian while he was in the school.

Anyhow, this thread got pretty violent... I won't stay in those discussions anymore, but not every murderer is mentally ill and not every mentally ill person is absolved from the crimes that they commit. If they were, "thou shalt not kill" wouldn't be in the Bible...

[Danderson]

Look guys....it really doesn't matter what this guys motives are or how many "real" christians there are in Canada and America....

What matters is that it's people like this shooter who need to see Christ's love the most....could we at least agree on that?
...
In the words of Govner Tarkin (Star Wars: A New Hope) "This bickering is pointless...."

[Shadowalker]

Look guys....it really doesn't matter what this guys motives are or how many "real" christians there are in Canada and America....

What matters is that it's people like this shooter who need to see Christ's love the most....could we at least agree on that?
...
In the words of Govner Tarkin (Star Wars: A New Hope) "This bickering is pointless...."

I'd agree to that, yeah. I'd like to apologize in case this level of... passionate debate is generally frowned upon here (which is the impression that I'm starting to get). I can understand that if so, and will try to refrain from debates like this in the future on this board.

[Nate]

Well, this thread is extremely civil... compared to most of the threads where I've seen atheists talk about Christianity. ]
True, but it did have the potential to get heated. :p

It has been around as long as most Americans have been alive, however, meaning that it's the Pledge of Alliegance that Americans are most familiar and comfortable with.

Heh, funny story. I remember watching an old Porky Pig cartoon as a kid, about the pledge of allegiance, and at the end he recites it...without the "under God" line. I had attributed it to a deliberate attempt to remove mention of God from the cartoon, but only later found out the cartoon was made before the phrase was added to the pledge. XD

Anyway, I admittably don't have much, if any, sympathy for people who take exception to small elements of the broader culture that reflect upon the predominant faith of the country.

I agree to a point. I had a friend in the Navy who was Norse pagan, and he got upset at a muffler shop or whatever that had "God bless America" on its sign (this was very shortly after 9/11). My friend (Christian at the time) and I both said, "Man, whatever...just pretend that it says 'Thor bless America' if it makes you feel better." If someone gets offended by that, meh, too bad for them. Deal.

However I still have to draw the line at attempting to draft/pass laws based on religious beliefs, for First Amendment reasons, and really, that's the bigger issue to most atheists. I've heard many atheists say "People are free to believe whatever religious claptrap they want but the second they start infringing on MY rights, there's a problem." And they're absolutely correct in that statement.

I can list numerous Hollywood movies that present Christianity in a negative light, if you want.

That depends on how you define presenting Christianity in a negative light. I can think of very, VERY few movies that present Christianity in a negative light...most of the reason being the Christian majority in this country. The only ones that immediately come to mind are Dogma and The Da Vinci Code. Not saying there aren't more, just that those are the only two that stand out.

I think the problem is that many Christians define "anti-Christian" as simply not presenting Christianity as true. That's ridiculous though. If a non-Christian person makes a movie involving Christianity, of course they won't present it as true. They don't believe it's true. That doesn't mean they don't respect the religion, just that they don't believe in it.

I'll give you an example of a movie many may classify as anti-Christian. This movie is called The Order starring Heath Ledger. It involves a person called a "Sin Eater" that can remove the sins from a person's soul, creating a loophole that allows people into Heaven without being Christian. The Catholic Church in the movie is portrayed as wholly corrupt, with a prominent number of bishops and cardinals doing very not Christian things.

At first glance, it would be easy to dismiss this movie as hostile to Christianity. But it isn't. It's hostile to Catholicism, that IS true. But look at it deeper. It does not say Jesus did not exist, nor that He was not divine. It in fact supports that Jesus was the Son of God and is the only way into Heaven. It says there is a Heaven and Hell. It says that everything Christianity believes is true. Just that there is another way into Heaven without Jesus.

This of course makes the movie make no sense, as the Sin Eater could only function if a person believed absolutely everything about Christianity was true and rejected it anyway. Even so, I'm not really going to go too deep into the plot (I was asleep for half the movie anyway). I'm just saying that while the movie is certainly anti-Catholic, it is certainly NOT anti-Christian, as it states Christianity is totally correct (aside from the created loophole). But I'd be willing to bet most Christians who saw it would classify it as hostile to their faith.

You see what I mean? Simply because someone makes a movie, book, whatever that portrays Christianity as being untrue, does not mean it is anti-Christian, nor that they are attacking Christians or Christianity.

Abortion is not a religious issue.

It kind of is, as defining whether abortion is child murder or not depends on your beliefs regarding when exactly a fetus qualifies as a human, a lot of which is influenced heavily by religious upbringing. I'd rather not state my beliefs on when a fetus is a human, to avoid debate, but I will say that anyone who sees an ultrasound of a fetus and claims it is not human is a fool.

Also remember Catholicism and many fundamentalist sects of Christianity classify birth control as abortion as well, so yes, it is religious in nature.

There's a big difference to objecting to the government subsidizing child-killing, and objecting to the government funding faith-based programs that are proven to be effectual (Alcoholics Anonymous are greatly effectual in large part due to the spiritual dimensions of its treatment approach).

The problem is the fact that the more extreme atheists classify religion as brainwashing, mind control, mental illness, etc. Again, look at it from their perspective. Even if the faith-based programs ARE effective, would you want to support it if you believe the methods they use are unscrupulous and damaging to the mind? If you truly believed religion was harmful to people, would it matter how much it seemed to help others?

How would you verify such a claim?

Though it certainly isn't a perfect source...

"Richard Castaldo said at the hospital after the shooting that they mocked Rachel [Scott] for her faith and then they killed her. But he also didn't remember what happened after he was shot."

"Although it is popularly believed that Bernall was the individual who was asked "Do you believe in God?", it is debated that the exchange was instead taken place between Klebold and surviving student Valeen Schnurr. Three students who witnessed Bernall's death, including the person who was hiding under the table with her, have testified the exchange did not occur. Although some students who were in the library asserted the exchange occurred, none of them physically witnessed it."

There ya go. From Wikipedia.

Ancient history. Christianity is very much changed from what it was in those times.

Agreed, agreed, but they still existed, and cannot be ignored.

A large percentage of those who label themselves as a Christian do not generally live as a Christian normally would.

I decided to emphasize Ryan's statement since as was pointed out, censuses are totally inaccurate. For example, Mormons classify themselves as Christians, when they are anything but, and Thomas Jefferson said he was a Christian when a thorough reading of his religious beliefs makes that statement laughable. Thus, we can see that what a person says about their faith can sometimes be misleading, and therefore any census count of people who claim the title of Christian for themselves, is unfortunately useless to tell us the true number of Christians.

Anyway, I hope this doesn't turn heated. I'm not trying to resurrect the debate. XD I honestly expected this thread to be locked when I got back from work, and since it wasn't, I decided I'd just throw some more stuff out there for clarification. Not really interested in debating at all.

[Zilch]

And the question is, how long until stupid, old, irrelevant politicians blame this on video games?

Well, not too long, apparently, but it's in a wee bit of a different light than most would think.

http://gamepolitics.com/2007/12/12/colorado-church-shooter-was-kept-away-from-games-by-parents/

[Shadowalker]

I'm glad you replied, Nate. It does clarify your perspective and take on things a bit as you intended.

We disagree on some issues where we'll probably need to agree to disagree, but you seem like a reasonable guy.

I'll just make a few short points...

1. I don't really trust Wiki for anything of a controversial nature. For an anime review, sure, but for detailed accounts of important past events - I don't really trust it. A lot of people don't, I find.

2. I would consider Mormons to be Christians. Christians with very... exotic beliefs beyond standard Christian beliefs, but Christians nonetheless. Most Mormons I've met on-line consider themselves Christians.

3. Just to clarify my own position, I don't mind legalized gay civil unions, but I don't think that the government should use the term "marriage" to refer to it, due to the significance that this term holds for many religious people. I share your views on abortion, more or less.

And...

I decided to emphasize Ryan's statement since as was pointed out, censuses are totally inaccurate.

Are you refering to me here? My real name's Ryan, but I don't recall giving it out.

I'll leave it at that (or try to, anyway ).

I like your Ho-Ho-Hotaru avatar, by the way. Really clever!

[beau99]

1. I don't really trust Wiki for anything of a controversial nature. For an anime review, sure, but for detailed accounts of important past events - I don't really trust it. A lot of people don't, I find.

The Wiki article regarding the Columbine shooting gives links to actual sources.

[Mr. SmartyPants]

Are you refering to me here? My real name's Ryan, but I don't recall giving it out

No, that's me.

[RobinSena]

I don't have much to say, but I just want to add a +1 to everything Nate has said.

[Shadowalker]

The Wiki article regarding the Columbine shooting gives links to actual sources.

Well, it's a moot point anyway, as the articles on the Columbine shooters that I've read clearly point out their fervently anti-Christian views.

[Shadowalker]

This thread has captured a lot of my thought as of late. With this in mind, I felt compelled to reply to some more of Nate's points.

That depends on how you define presenting Christianity in a negative light. I can think of very, VERY few movies that present Christianity in a negative light...most of the reason being the Christian majority in this country. The only ones that immediately come to mind are Dogma and The Da Vinci Code. Not saying there aren't more, just that those are the only two that stand out.

I think the problem is that many Christians define "anti-Christian" as simply not presenting Christianity as true. That's ridiculous though. If a non-Christian person makes a movie involving Christianity, of course they won't present it as true. They don't believe it's true. That doesn't mean they don't respect the religion, just that they don't believe in it.

I'll give you an example of a movie many may classify as anti-Christian. This movie is called The Order starring Heath Ledger. It involves a person called a "Sin Eater" that can remove the sins from a person's soul, creating a loophole that allows people into Heaven without being Christian. The Catholic Church in the movie is portrayed as wholly corrupt, with a prominent number of bishops and cardinals doing very not Christian things.

At first glance, it would be easy to dismiss this movie as hostile to Christianity. But it isn't. It's hostile to Catholicism, that IS true. But look at it deeper. It does not say Jesus did not exist, nor that He was not divine. It in fact supports that Jesus was the Son of God and is the only way into Heaven. It says there is a Heaven and Hell. It says that everything Christianity believes is true. Just that there is another way into Heaven without Jesus.

This of course makes the movie make no sense, as the Sin Eater could only function if a person believed absolutely everything about Christianity was true and rejected it anyway. Even so, I'm not really going to go too deep into the plot (I was asleep for half the movie anyway). I'm just saying that while the movie is certainly anti-Catholic, it is certainly NOT anti-Christian, as it states Christianity is totally correct (aside from the created loophole). But I'd be willing to bet most Christians who saw it would classify it as hostile to their faith.

You see what I mean? Simply because someone makes a movie, book, whatever that portrays Christianity as being untrue, does not mean it is anti-Christian, nor that they are attacking Christians or Christianity.

I think that it's more nuanced than you make it appear.

There's a difference between presenting Christianity in a movie and remaining neutral or open-ended over whether or not Christianity is true, and presenting Christianity in a movie and arguing that Christianity is false. To include Christianity in a movie, and to then mock it, deride it, and/or explicitly or implicity argue that Christianity is false... that is anti-Christian, Nate.

Now, I'm not saying that one lone minor scene does this (i.e. even the movie SWAT had one such scene in it), but if it keeps coming up again and again... then Hollywood is trying to slam Christianity there, yes. Which is anti-Christian. End of story.

It kind of is, as defining whether abortion is child murder or not depends on your beliefs regarding when exactly a fetus qualifies as a human, a lot of which is influenced heavily by religious upbringing.

It doesn't have to be. The most passionate pro-lifer I know is an atheist. He's against it for a combination of moral and scientific reasons.

I'd rather not state my beliefs on when a fetus is a human, to avoid debate, but I will say that anyone who sees an ultrasound of a fetus and claims it is not human is a fool.

Also remember Catholicism and many fundamentalist sects of Christianity classify birth control as abortion as well, so yes, it is religious in nature.

Only if pro-lifers (or pro-choicers) choose to approach the issue with the heavy use of religious arguments. When I've debated abortion in the recent past, I've relied almost exclusively on scientific arguments, and reasoning that could be considered secular (I break from that only when debating the issue with other Christians).

The problem is the fact that the more extreme atheists classify religion as brainwashing, mind control, mental illness, etc. Again, look at it from their perspective. Even if the faith-based programs ARE effective, would you want to support it if you believe the methods they use are unscrupulous and damaging to the mind? If you truly believed religion was harmful to people, would it matter how much it seemed to help others?

Their perspective is wrong, partly because "it seems to help others".

Their perspective constitutes bigotry, Nate. When you start to argue that very large groups of people believe differently than you do for absurd reasons like brainwashing, mind control, and mental illness, then you're engaging in bigotry. I don't agree with Muslims, but I would never argue that their beliefs are rooted in these absurd ideas.